Know Your 'Rafale'

[gadeshi]

Wait...
I have it in English already!
http://paralay.net/lfi_su.html

 

[Bahamut]

Sorry guys, but I have no time to translate much Please use Google Translate.
AFAIK, this project is not so much detailed, preliminary I donno the other details except for those article in Russian that I've posted earlier. Some Sukhoi guys say that there are some detailed design computations but they seem to be not in an open access.

Give us the link for EF 51.From what I know wind tunnel test was done on Su 37 ,we we get the incomplete design and results of the test along with joint program on engine and radar and electro optics system with Russia or France .HAL then has to just do little adjustment to meet IAF needs and it will be cheap and will have quick results as it is the preliminary design that takes the max time,so we should have prototype in about 3 years and test within 5 years and it can be alternative to both LCA and Rafale .

 

[gadeshi]

Give us the link for EF 51.From what I know wind tunnel test was done on Su 37 ,we we get the incomplete design and results of the test along with joint program on engine and radar and electro optics system with Russia or France .HAL then has to just do little adjustment to meet IAF needs and it will be cheap and will have quick results as it is the preliminary design that takes the max time,so we should have prototype in about 3 years and test within 5 years and it can be alternative to both LCA and Rafale .

E-51 is not an official project, just Sukhoi, Irkut and MiG engineers POW on what if MiG will do a light fighter based on Sukhoi PAK FA technical background utilizing all that is possible from it.
They have even calculated this which is resulted in so detailed cross-sectioning and layout.
But once again, it's not official!
I've just gave it as an example of what can it be and not an imperative to copy or so

 

[Bahamut]

E-51 is not an official project, just Sukhoi, Irkut and MiG engineers POW on what if MiG will do a light fighter based on Sukhoi PAK FA technical background utilizing all that is possible from it.
They have even calculated this which is resulted in so detailed cross-sectioning and layout.
But once again, it's not official!
I've just gave it as an example of what can it be and not an imperative to copy or so

Not copy,Su 37 is now out of the picture for RuAF,so India can just get the design and results and it right for say 500$million dollar on condition of no export.Similar to what single engine Mig 33 for J 17 and IAI Lavi for J 10 but under a agreement .

 

[warrior monk]

You have taken past data for only 5 years. You should have taken the same 15 year data to project future 15 years.
The $ growth would not be more than 5% cumulative assuming rest as rupee depreciation.

I used 5 years because of Rupee depreciation since 2011-12 . Military exp has historically grown more than 5 % YoY . Rupee has sufficiently depreciated any more depreciation will increase inflation forcing the RBI to intervene . Plus it depends not just on GDP growth rate but tax/gdp ratio which is low , GST and DTC will increase it much further when passed which will happen if only if congi turds allow it.

I have seen projections which show that invisibles are stabilizing and future growth will be slow.

As long as commodity prices are low India is bound to grow if our fundamentals are correct. Which it has .Stable forex , CPI IW , CPI-U ,CPI-R , WPI ,FD all points towards health.

 

[BON PLAN]

OK, guys, I'm tired to read full rivers of fanboys sperm about Rafale, EF-2000, F-35 or the like without even short analysis of IAF needs itself.

It resembles me much nigga's talks in Bronx:
- Johnny has long pennis (a good radar) so we need to buy his cars!
- No, Francoise has not so long pennis, but it is thicker (AESA), let's buy his stuff!
- I have a lot of money so I want to buy fancy car (or hot couture car, what ever)!

This all is complete shit, really.

The only thing you should keep in mind speaking about what fighter (or fighters) should be purchased for IAF is IAF structure.
Structure depends on many things, but the most influent are priority tasks and maintenance costs. All the park structure issues can be resolved by reviewing a balance between effectiveness in priority tasks and a maintenance costs.
In the other words, you should draw a priority tasks map and discuss what structure of your combat park will be the most effective to deal with them for the less possible money.

So, there are 3 main approaches to a combat planes park structure:

American one:
American approach is to have one heavy air dominator and another one light fighter to augment heavy one.
Brilliant examples - F-15 / F-16 and J-11 (13/15/16) / J-10.
Awful example - Su-27 and MiG-29 (will explain later).
This approach defines a light fighter as the following:

1. Single engine (as engine is commonly 1/3 or even 1/2 of fighter cost).
2. Light fighter must be less effective (1/3 or 1/2 of the heavy one) and by the same times cheapper. In the opposite it will not be neither light, nor affordable.
   
3. Light and heavy fighters numbers in the AF should be 3-4 light for one heavy.
   
4. Maximal light fighter unification with heavy one by:

• • Engine. First of All!!! So, the light fighter uses single engine the same as heavy one. This one cuts 30% maintenance costs alone.
  • Radar elements. Light fighter has basically the same radar with lesser antenna, power units and signal processors, but all the elements (especially for 4+Gen with AESA/PESA) are the same for both. Light fighter antenna just uses less number of the same TRMs. Signal processor must be a cluster of the same nodes, but light fighter has lessof them.
  • Mission computers (requirements are the same).
  • Defence suit (requirements are the same).
  • Cockpit gear (can be simply the same).
  • As many other parts (tires, wheels, spares, expendables) as possible.

American approach is ideal when you have:

• no formidable foes (or just one of them) near your borders;
• wide set of good airfields and ground infrastructure or relatively compact territory;
• you fight mostly in colonial war and not alone but with your allies.

This approach gives you the best quality to cost ratio.

European one:
EU choses monotype AF park having single type of medium fighter.
EU approach is the most cost-effective, but gives you less tactical effectiveness due to the fact that unified tool can do much but less effective than cpecial one.
However, EU can afford this due to complete dependance from US in all the operations when EU AFs rely on US heavy fighters support.

Russian one:
Russians have not a single type of fighter, but a unified heavy fighters family which has several type of heavy aircraft based on the same heavy fighter platform unified by 75 to 95% inside a platform.
This approach is defined by the following:

• Russia cannot afford itself to have less effective unified fighters force because it doesn't want to fight colonial wars, but must always be ready for a war with a formidable foes - NATO + USA.
• Russia has so vast territory, that simply cannot be covered with a dense set of airbases to allow to operate the other fighters except heavy ones.

So this approach allows you to create specialized aircrafts within the unified family and have the top notch effectiveness for a higher, but reasonable price.

As for IAF, my conclusions about structure are the following:

1. IAF has no such a formidable tasks like VKS, so Russian heavy only approach is excessive.
2. If you want to go EU way, then you should scrap all the heavies like Su-30MKI and lights like LCA and abandone FGFA to purchase Rafale or EF-2000 now and concentrate on AMCA for the future.
3. If IAF will go EU way, then it should abandon Rafale deal and go for EF-2000 as it has much better dynamic envelope, especially supersonic.
4. IAF cannot afford EU way because it has to be on par with China having heavy fighters in its AF.
5. Due to all the positions above, the most effective will have American way to form AF structure - 1 heavy dominator and one light fighter with maximal unification to heavy one as possible.

However, if IAF will chose American approach to AF park structure, it should abandone all the medium fighters projects and deals and concentrate on LCA.
But LCA must be maximal unified with Su-30MKI in this case. In the other words, it should have one Al-31F (117S for Super Sukhoi) engine, the same cockpit gear, mission computers clasters, defence suit parts, radar components and the like. Nowadays LCA is less than 1/4 of Su-30MKI effectiveness which is not acceptable.

In American structure case, your ideal LCA should be like J-10 or the other MiG-related project - Type 412:

In the other words, it should be a light fighter with a full MTOW less than 20 tons (12-15 tons for Gen 4) with a high flight envelope but 1/3 or 1/4 avionics capability and 1/3 or 1/4 of a range of heavy air dominator.

Keep cool Guy. If you are tired, have a sleep.

 

[gadeshi]

Not copy,Su 37 is now out of the picture for RuAF,so India can just get the design and results and it right for say 500$million dollar on condition of no export.Similar to what single engine Mig 33 for J 17 and IAI Lavi for J 10 but under a agreement .

Personally I think if it would be an Indian interests and Su-37 result and baggsge worse the money to be sold for, Sukhoi would give it to you with even export rights granted

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[BON PLAN]

Now about perspective.
While Russia and India have chosen T-50 as a heavy dominator and the next unified platform, they have to think about if they need a light fighter?
The answer for Russia is No. However, as new Okhotnik-B UCAV will be long ranged and supersonic, it can take not so wide niche of light fighter in VKS.
India will need to chose to develop a manned light 5 Gen fighter or go for Okhotnik-B purchase and/or "make in India".

If IAF will chose a manned fighter, it should not be AMCA (because it is medium and will have too many different parts, primarily engine and avionics). It should be another project of a single-engined fighter using Item 30 engine like FGFA.
In my modest POW it should be something like these:
American XF-36 project:

or Russian E-51:

No space for fuel. .

 

[BON PLAN]

It has already been in reports that

MBDA has said that weapons will be extra cost over and above rafale costs of 12 billion which dasault is asking for

And

Support will also be extra

So stop spreading your lies

I was just speaking about SH18 with Australia. So keep your acerbic tongue Inside your mouth Guy.

 

[gadeshi]

No space for fuel. .

It has enough space for almost 5 tons of it

 

[BON PLAN]

And some more light fighter projects:
Su-37 (Sukhoi LFI): http://www.paralay.com/lfi_su.html

A single engine Rafale ..... .

 

[BON PLAN]

It has enough space for almost 5 tons of it

Where? In the thin wings ???

 

[gadeshi]

A single engine Rafale ..... .

Yes, but it has lesser MTOW.
And it has appeared on the 10 years earlier :biggrin2:

 

[gadeshi]

Where? In the thin wings ???

Look at the cross-sections carefully.
Wings are not so thin as they look like and there are many other places in the unibody.
3D views are included, so spin it and look

 

[Immanuel]

I was just speaking about SH18 with Australia. So keep your acerbic tongue Inside your mouth Guy.

Quit your BS, the Aussie deal included some weaponry, service and a host of other things

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-fa-18ef-super-hornet-and-ea-18g-growler-aircraft

 

[BON PLAN]

The real war you are talking about can only be Nato vs Russia ( God forbid) . In this eventuality , yes, Europe is awfully dependent on US. Years of cutting defence spendings or playing free riders .. many Nato countries spend as little as 0,5 % GDP in defence. But if Germany was fielding 500 Typhoons , the picture would be different . And France was supposed to field much more than 150 Rafale by now too .. our own effort sank to 1,52 % in 2013.

OTAN vs Russia? Absolutely not sure Russia is so strong (today) : many weapons are over dated. Lack of well trained troops (except paratroopers). It's a colossus with feet of clay. Maybe in 10 years. But during this time EU will be stronger also. Terrorism and Russia will modify our perception about peace dividends....

 

[BON PLAN]

Quit your BS, the Aussie deal included some weaponry, service and a host of other things

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-fa-18ef-super-hornet-and-ea-18g-growler-aircraft

YES, of course. That's why SH was only sold to Australia.

 

[BON PLAN]

Look at the cross-sections carefully.
Wings are not so thin as they look like and there are many other places in the unibody.
3D views are included, so spin it and look

??? Air intakes and ducts, internal bays (huge !), landing gear, engine..... I don't see where to put 5T fuel. Sorry.

 

[Tactical Frog]

OTAN vs Russia? Absolutely not sure Russia is so strong (today) : many weapons are over dated. Lack of well trained troops (except paratroopers). It's a colossus with feet of clay. Maybe in 10 years. But during this time EU will be stronger also. Terrorism and Russia will modify our perception about peace dividends....

The point I was trying to make was not so much about Russia' s strength than about Europe weakness without the support of USA. About Russia they really work hard to fix their weaknesses .. faster than Lutwaffe who can only fly a handful of Typhoons at a time according reports.
Thankfully AdlA is more ready than Lutwaffe looking at :

 

[gadeshi]

OTAN vs Russia? Absolutely not sure Russia is so strong (today) : many weapons are over dated. Lack of well trained troops (except paratroopers). It's a colossus with feet of clay. Maybe in 10 years. But during this time EU will be stronger also. Terrorism and Russia will modify our perception about peace dividends....

NATO is nothing worth empty place not able even to defend itself... Without USA.
But we have Gorshkov's Path plans for this case And a fucking big swarms of T-10 based heavies (not speaking about the rest of the army)

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk